Overall impression: Reviews for Getz Personal Care Home are mixed but consistently emphasize excellent cleanliness, a warm and friendly culture among many staff members, and a pleasant rural campus with well-maintained grounds and a pond. Many families and residents praise the housekeeping, the homey environment, private rooms with decent storage, and staff who are compassionate and responsive. At the same time, a significant minority of reviews raise serious concerns about clinical staffing, consistency of care, food quality, billing practices, and suitability for higher-care needs. The pattern suggests the home can provide a very positive experience for independent or mostly independent seniors, but it may struggle to reliably meet the needs of residents requiring more medical oversight or hands-on assistance.
Staff and care quality: A dominant theme is a split in perceptions of staff. Numerous reviews call staff friendly, warm, and accommodating — with administrators described as helpful and directors responsive. Several anecdotes highlight staff going beyond expectations and strong family involvement. However, multiple reviewers reported understaffing, high turnover, and variability in staff competency. There are specific clinical concerns: no registered nurse on site, LPN coverage noted roughly 8:00–4:30, and personal care staff (PCs) present 24/7. Reviewers cite poor emergency care responses, medication timing and medical technician issues, and inadequate nursing coverage for higher-need residents. These reports indicate risk for families with loved ones who need timely medical intervention, complex medication management, or help with walking and eating.
Facilities and setting: The building and grounds receive consistent praise. Reviews repeatedly note that rooms and common areas are very clean, well-kept, and have a home-like feeling rather than a clinical institutional atmosphere. Private rooms with attached bathrooms and sizable closets are frequently mentioned positively, though some reviews say certain rooms are small and minimally furnished. The rural setting and scenic pond with ducks, geese, and swans are seen as assets; outings (e.g., for ice cream) are appreciated. Accessibility caveats include a busy road that must be crossed to access the pond and some commenters noting that the dining room is inconveniently located far from resident rooms. One safety/organizational concern mentioned is that mobility equipment has been stored in closets, which could be inconvenient or unsafe.
Dining and activities: Reports on food are mixed and polarized. Several reviewers praise meals as good or edible and appreciate that people enjoy the dining and outings. Conversely, a number of reviews complain strongly: meals described as box-frozen, unappealing, bland, slow to be served, or served in small portions — with one or more people labeling the food “terrible.” Preferences and cultural expectations (for example, an Italian palate) affected satisfaction for some residents. Activities appear to be available and include exercise classes, bingo, music, card games, and trips; many residents enjoy the social programming. Yet some reviewers found activities limited, unclear, or insufficiently robust. In short, social offerings exist and are a positive for many, but dining quality and consistency are areas of frequent complaint.
Management, billing, and safety concerns: Several concerning themes recur about administrative practices. Multiple reviewers raised billing irregularities and overbilling disputes; some felt their complaints were ignored or dismissed by management. There are also reports of coordination problems with the facility’s pharmacy and outside health providers, and at least one reviewer reported items stolen from rooms. Conversely, other reviewers describe management as terrific, attentive, and accommodating. These starkly different experiences suggest inconsistent administrative practices and outcomes: families often praised the director and administrative responsiveness, but others experienced dismissive behavior and unresolved complaints.
Suitability and cost: A clear pattern emerges regarding who thrives at Getz and who does not. Reviewers consistently say the home is well-suited for residents who are fairly independent — those who are ambulatory, can feed themselves, and do not require dementia-specific care. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the facility is not appropriate for people needing walking or eating assistance or with significant cognitive decline. Cost perceptions vary: some consider the pricing reasonable or affordable, while others complain that a one-bedroom costing about $3,000/month is high for the level of medical oversight and room size; reviewers also note price variation among residents. Prospective families should weigh the financial cost against the variability in clinical coverage and services.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The strongest positive, consistent across reviews, is cleanliness and the presence of many caring, friendly staff and a pleasant atmosphere. The most significant negatives are related to clinical staffing (no RN onsite, limited LPN hours), inconsistent medical/medication handling, food quality variability, administrative/billing complaints, and reports of theft. These combine to create meaningful risk for residents who require more than personal-care-level support. For families considering Getz, recommended due diligence includes: asking explicitly about RN coverage and emergency protocols; confirming medication administration processes and pharmacy arrangements; requesting a sample menu and meal observation; inquiring about staffing ratios and turnover; clarifying billing practices and contract terms in writing; and assessing whether the resident’s care needs are aligned with a personal-care (not dementia or skilled nursing) environment. If the prospective resident is mostly independent and values cleanliness, a family atmosphere, and outdoor scenery, Getz may be a good fit. If higher medical needs, dementia care, or tightly managed medication services are required, families should consider alternatives or require written assurances about staffing and clinical coverage before committing.
